Correspondence from Guinier to Winner; Legal Research on Summary Vote Dilution Caselaw
Working File
November 15, 1985

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Correspondence from Guinier to Winner; Legal Research on Summary Vote Dilution Caselaw, 1985. 6d3acb8f-db92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8c1139c0-b5cb-4ba2-b61e-22ff8e4850d9/correspondence-from-guinier-to-winner-legal-research-on-summary-vote-dilution-caselaw. Accessed May 12, 2025.
Copied!
T/1"^o f,,^ Lani Guinier November 15, I985 To: Leslie Winner Re: Summary Vote Dilution Caselaw LG /r Attach cc: Julius Chambers, Esq' rhanks ror this - lL"-* C-++jttO e* ,t-.,, fu^ffi.Y h-t {G SUMMARY VOTE DILUTION CASELAW t. Gqnillrqn vr t-r-ghEaa!, 364 u.s. 339, 5 t.Ed 2d 1I0, 8I S.Ct. 125 (1960). The Court held that a claim of gerry mandering of municipal boundaries to fence out Negro citizens 'so as to deprive them of their pre-existing municipal vote" stated a claim under the Fifteenth Amendment. fn answering the assertion that establishment of,municipal boundaries is a purely political guestion not subject to judicial r.ev,iew, the Court stated: When a State exercises power wholly within lhe domain of state interest, it is insulated from - federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right. Id. at 347. 2. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L.Ed 2d 653, 82 S.Ct. 691 (1962). In the context of a claim that the malapportionment of the Tennessee legislature violated the egual protection clause, the Court held that constitutional chalf"rrge. to state legislative apportionments are not nonjusticable "political guestions." The nonjusticability of political guestions is primarily a function of the separation of powers, and the determination of the consistency of state actions with the Federal Constitution is r,rithin the realm of the judicial branch. 3. Revnolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, L2 L.Ed 2d 505, 84 S.Ct. 1352 (L9641. In the context of a challenge to the apportionment of the Alabama legislature, the Court recognized that voting strength can be unconstitutionally diluted by creation of legislative districts wj.th highly dispurete numbers of people residing in each district. [fJne right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting .the free exercise of the franchise. Id. at 555. The Court's holding that the egual protection clause reguires that seats in both house of a bicameral state legislature be apportioned so that each seat has as .near to egual population as is practical has .cotn. to be known as the 'one person one vote" doctrine. See also Drum v. SeaweII , 250 F.Supp. 922 (M.D.N.C. I965) (holding apportionment of seats in North Carolina General Assembly to violate one person one vote). 4. White v. Reqis.ter, 4L2 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332? 37 L.Ed 2d 314 (1973). Plaintiffs claimed that the use of at large elections from multimember districts diluted black and hispanic voting strength by submerging concentrations of minority voters into larger white electorates. The Court combined the concepts of unconstitutional exclusion of voters based on race, see Gomillion v. Lichtfoot, SPIB, with unconstitutional dilution of voting strengthr s€e Revnolds v. Sims, supra, to hold that dilution of voting strength of racial minorities as a group violates the egual protection clause. "The plaintiffs' burden is to produce evidence to support findings that the political process leading to nomination and election were not egually open to participation by the group in guestion - that its members had less opportunity than did other residents in the district to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice." Id. at 766. The determination is to be made 2- on "the totality of circumstances'r which is a blend of cultural, economic and political realities, past and present. 5. Between 1973 and 1980, the.Courts of Appeals fleshed -'' out the meaning of the White v. Reqlster totality of circumstances test. See esp. Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d L2g7 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc) aff'd on other qrounds sub non East Carroll Parish School Board v. Yarshall, 424 U.S. 536 (1976), in which the Court articulated what came to be known as "the Zimmer factors " 5. Citv of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, I00 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.EF2d 47 (1980). The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits only purposeful denial of the right to vote because of race and does not entail the right to have black candidates elected. The Court applied Washinqton v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1975) and Arlinqton Heiqhts v. Metropolitian Housins Authoritv, 429 U.S. 252 (L97'l ) to claims of racial discrimination affecting voting and held that dilution of minority voting strength violates the egual protection clause only if it is the result of purposeful discrimination against black voters. Finally, a plurality of the Court held that section 2 of the voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 u.s.c. s L973,' had the same seope as the Fifteenth Amendment. 7. The Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, pub.L.No. 97-205, amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to eliminate the reguirement of proving discriminatory purpose and to incorporate the totality of circumstances test of White v. Reqisterr supEdr and its progeny. See legislative history, 3- Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 1992, S. Rep. No. 4L7, 97th Con., 2d Sess. (1982). 4-